JGC wrote:I love people bag on the FO for signing too many old players and then they want to give a multi-year deal to Danny Granger of all players. HUH?

I know you're not talking about me because I never said we would be giving him a multi-year deal (unless he proves he is worth it), nor have I bagged on the FO for signing so called "old players." But I'll still respond. So as you corrected me in the other thread, Granger is 30 as of last month instead of 29. Is that supposed to be old? I said he was a young-ish player and to me he is. 30 for a small forward is pretty much right in the middle of a players' prime. Lebron James is only a year and a half younger than Granger. Do you consider him old? Or is 28 and a half so much younger than 30? I just think you're splitting hairs here.

The question mark for Granger is not his age, but his knee. If you're worried about his knee, join the club. So am I. I have no idea where he's at. But I like the idea that he's an EXPIRING contract, not a multi-year deal. He doesn't get in the way of the 2014 plan in any way. If he's healthy, and I concede that's a big if, he's just the kind of player I'd like to have on this team. He's a two way SF (our most glaring need) and he can shoot the three. Trade Pau for him and you have a better fit for the team and a young-ish player who might possibly be a good match with Howard going forward. Then you have this year to see how good he's going to be. If he is good you can negotiate with him.

To me it's all upside. I don't see what we lose by it. Obviously there's more luxury tax money to be saved by amnestying Pau than MWP, but in terms of fielding a better basketball team I'd rather take the chance on Granger than just let Pau go.

JGC wrote:I love people bag on the FO for signing too many old players and then they want to give a multi-year deal to Danny Granger of all players. HUH?

I know you're not talking about me because I never said we would be giving him a multi-year deal (unless he proves he is worth it), nor have I bagged on the FO for signing so called "old players." But I'll still respond. So as you corrected me in the other thread, Granger is 30 as of last month instead of 29. Is that supposed to be old? I said he was a young-ish player and to me he is. 30 for a small forward is pretty much right in the middle of a players' prime. Lebron James is only a year and a half younger than Granger. Do you consider him old? Or is 28 and a half so much younger than 30? I just think you're splitting hairs here.

The question mark for Granger is not his age, but his knee. If you're worried about his knee, join the club. So am I. I have no idea where he's at. But I like the idea that he's an EXPIRING contract, not a multi-year deal. He doesn't get in the way of the 2014 plan in any way. If he's healthy, and I concede that's a big if, he's just the kind of player I'd like to have on this team. He's a two way SF (our most glaring need) and he can shoot the three. Trade Pau for him and you have a better fit for the team and a young-ish player who might possibly be a good match with Howard going forward. Then you have this year to see how good he's going to be. If he is good you can negotiate with him.

To me it's all upside. I don't see what we lose by it. Obviously there's more luxury tax money to be saved by amnestying Pau than MWP, but in terms of fielding a better basketball team I'd rather take the chance on Granger than just let Pau go.

Wasn't directed at you specifically ... just, to all those on the Granger bus.

Well, if 30 isn't old and saying 28 = 30 then our team isn't old and we don't need to get any younger. I mean, if 28 and 30 are the same then so is 30 and 32. Which means, 30 and 34 are the same so Kobe is the same as 28. Which means, Steve Nash is the same as Kyrie Irving too. Unless, we're splitting hairs here.

We're having the same discussion in two different threads =)

The point is... what is the point of trading away Pau for Granger?

- Granger couldn't play at all this season because of injury- Granger doesn't make you a contender.- What do you do if Granger, in an expiring contract coming off an injury, trying to play for a final BIG contract, puts up big, big numbers? Then what? - Granger is a nice player, but if you give any SF over 15 shots, plus 5-6 FTs per game, they could probably score in the high teens, with 2 assists and 5 boards per game.

Granger fills the biggest need, a 2-way SF. If he puts up big numbers, then you do what every team does, gauge his interest and his contract terms. If he's too expensive and there's a better alternative, don't re-sign.

I'm not on the Granger bus, but I currently don't see this move as a significant downgrade. Maybe a sidegrade at worst, IMO.

The Rock wrote:Granger as a 1 year rental? From a talent perspective sure but financially does this work? Since we're due for heavy penalties ya know...

He's cheaper than Pau. Amensty Artest.

We save a lot of money financially.

^^ That's exactly it. Plus he's not technically a rental. If he's a Laker and he does play really well we then have the best ability to negotiate with him going forward. If he doesn't work out, or if somehow Lebron James makes himself available to sign with us, then by all means, just let him expire.

I don't see any down side to it. You fill a spot that we're in desperate need of, you don't get in the way of the 2014 plan, you save money by moving Pau and amnestying MWP.

The only down side is if Granger isn't any good any more post-injury. It's a concern I've mentioned in every single one of my posts on the subject, however.

Paul Pierce?? For the vet min. He doesn't fill a need other than ball handling duties. I'd take him as a 6th man at the most, and only for the vet min. We need to use mini MLE on some young athletic player for our bench.

Metta World Peace ($7.7 million salary): $31.4 million savingsPau Gasol ($19.3 million salary): $67 million savings

Oh that's interesting...

Except that amnestying Pau is one of the dumbest things we could do. If you don't want him anymore you trade him. There's takers out there in the league for one of the most talented offensive 7 footers in the league who happens to be a massive expiring contract.

There's NO takers for an injury prone, offensively challenged, non-athlete like Artest.

So sure, amnesty Gasol.

Now you're left with Clark and Hill as your PFs AND Artest as a SF. WOW. What a GREAT team.

C0TT0NCANDY wrote:Instead of amnestying MWP, the Lakers should hope for a opt out in his option this summer so that way the Lakers have the power to still use the amnesty provision on someone else on this roster.

Ron's bro, Daniel, basically said that the opt-out will not happen. He'd be dumb as hell to do it.

JGC wrote:I love people bag on the FO for signing too many old players and then they want to give a multi-year deal to Danny Granger of all players. HUH?

I know you're not talking about me because I never said we would be giving him a multi-year deal (unless he proves he is worth it), nor have I bagged on the FO for signing so called "old players." But I'll still respond. So as you corrected me in the other thread, Granger is 30 as of last month instead of 29. Is that supposed to be old? I said he was a young-ish player and to me he is. 30 for a small forward is pretty much right in the middle of a players' prime. Lebron James is only a year and a half younger than Granger. Do you consider him old? Or is 28 and a half so much younger than 30? I just think you're splitting hairs here.

The question mark for Granger is not his age, but his knee. If you're worried about his knee, join the club. So am I. I have no idea where he's at. But I like the idea that he's an EXPIRING contract, not a multi-year deal. He doesn't get in the way of the 2014 plan in any way. If he's healthy, and I concede that's a big if, he's just the kind of player I'd like to have on this team. He's a two way SF (our most glaring need) and he can shoot the three. Trade Pau for him and you have a better fit for the team and a young-ish player who might possibly be a good match with Howard going forward. Then you have this year to see how good he's going to be. If he is good you can negotiate with him.

To me it's all upside. I don't see what we lose by it. Obviously there's more luxury tax money to be saved by amnestying Pau than MWP, but in terms of fielding a better basketball team I'd rather take the chance on Granger than just let Pau go.

Wasn't directed at you specifically ... just, to all those on the Granger bus.

Well, if 30 isn't old and saying 28 = 30 then our team isn't old and we don't need to get any younger. I mean, if 28 and 30 are the same then so is 30 and 32. Which means, 30 and 34 are the same so Kobe is the same as 28. Which means, Steve Nash is the same as Kyrie Irving too. Unless, we're splitting hairs here.

We're having the same discussion in two different threads =)

The point is... what is the point of trading away Pau for Granger?

- Granger couldn't play at all this season because of injury- Granger doesn't make you a contender.- What do you do if Granger, in an expiring contract coming off an injury, trying to play for a final BIG contract, puts up big, big numbers? Then what? - Granger is a nice player, but if you give any SF over 15 shots, plus 5-6 FTs per game, they could probably score in the high teens, with 2 assists and 5 boards per game.

Yeah, I figured you weren't aiming at me specifically, that's why I prefaced mine the way I did, JGC.

RE: the age thing - I know what you are saying - the point being that Granger isn't getting any younger or any better. And I do agree with that. As a player he's not on an upswing. My point though, was that he just turned 30. Lebron is not two years younger than him, it's a year and a half difference. He's 28 and a half if we are going to split hairs. My point is that age-wise they're both still in their primes. Generally speaking most pundits, and I'd agree with them, tend to think of pro ball players being in their prime from age 28-32. That's when their maturity, skills and court smarts usually catch up with their athleticism. That's the age when most guys hit their stride. So I don't think of Granger as old, or older. The main concern for me is not age, but that knee. That's my question mark.

As far as why I would trade Pau for Granger I think I've already spelled it out now pretty clearly in a few posts in each thread.

^^^Yeah, we've known that for a while now. Thing is, Pau expires in a year and we'll save that money at that time regardless. If we're worried about money NOW, then the only option is to amnesty Pau.

We're probably not going to do that because there is SOME market for Pau in a trade. MWP? Not so much. However, if nothing of quality can be returned via Gasol trade, it makes more sense to keep him.

Plus even in a trade scenario, we take back a certain amount of money, so it wouldn't actually result in $67M of savings...we'd probably take back $10-15M in such a trade which would account for less or as much as the savings in MWP at best. So unless something good is on the table, the Lakers won't rush to move Pau.

Metta World Peace ($7.7 million salary): $31.4 million savingsPau Gasol ($19.3 million salary): $67 million savings

Oh that's interesting...

Except that amnestying Pau is one of the dumbest things we could do. If you don't want him anymore you trade him. There's takers out there in the league for one of the most talented offensive 7 footers in the league who happens to be a massive expiring contract.

There's NO takers for an injury prone, offensively challenged, non-athlete like Artest.

So sure, amnesty Gasol.

Now you're left with Clark and Hill as your PFs AND Artest as a SF. WOW. What a GREAT team.

I never said amnestying Gasol is the only option, please read through my posts. However I think its one of the better options for the team moving forward. Is there a trade market for him? Can we make a trade in such a manner that improves the team and drops salary? Highly unlikely

$185 mil for a team that is not winning a championship. Think about it. What team is gonna give up valuable pieces for a 33 yr old guy who probably wont stay more than a year with them (Gasol). Ron's $7.7 is easier to move since it doesn't require a lot of assets being sent the other way to the Lakers

A salary dump (like Abeer brought up earlier) also seems possible that might improve team flexibilty (2 small contracts + picks) but that kinda deal wont improve team for 2013/2014

Last edited by The Rock on Mon May 06, 2013 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

The Rock wrote:I never said amnestying Gasol is the only option, please read through my posts. However I think its one of the better options for the team moving forward. Is there a trade market for him? Can we make a trade in such a manner that improves the team and drops salary? Highly unlikely

$185 mil for a team that is not winning a championship. Think about it

A salary dump also seems possible but that might improve team flexibilty (2 small contracts + picks) but that kinda deal wont improve team for 2013/2014

I didn't say you did say amnesty is the only option, I'm saying it's NOT an option. I'm sorry for the tone, but I'm sick of hearing some of these ideas where we cripple our own team.

Can we trade Gasol for Granger? Yes. Absolutely. Indiana would jump at that if they could make the financials work. Gasol gives them scoring, something they don't have. They're one of the league's best defensive teams so they could make up for Pau's defense. Granger isn't in their long term plans thanks to George.

Amnesty Artest and you've cleared at least 9 million off the books. That's a better savings than what you posted. And if Granger looks as good as he did before his injury (big IF), then you have a team that can make a little noise out there.

A team of Nash/Bryant/Granger/Clark/Howard is a very balanced team and one that better fits Howard. There's not a whole lot of draw backs to trading Gasol for Granger. In fact there's none.

Metta World Peace ($7.7 million salary): $31.4 million savingsPau Gasol ($19.3 million salary): $67 million savings

Oh that's interesting...

Except that amnestying Pau is one of the dumbest things we could do. If you don't want him anymore you trade him. There's takers out there in the league for one of the most talented offensive 7 footers in the league who happens to be a massive expiring contract.

There's NO takers for an injury prone, offensively challenged, non-athlete like Artest.

So sure, amnesty Gasol.

Now you're left with Clark and Hill as your PFs AND Artest as a SF. WOW. What a GREAT team.

^^ Exactly. If you amnesty Pau you are just decimating the SF position. If we trade him for Granger and one expiring guard to make the money work, you not only allow yourself to get the savings from amnestying MWP (31 million), you also take back less money for Pau which creates more savings. Pau Gasol = 19.285 going out, Granger and guard coming in = 15 million. You're saving over 4 million right there before luxury tax, so with luxury tax considerations that's 12 million of savings.

Amnesty isn't one of the better options....The thing is, we don't know what's happening with Dwight. We'll have a 6 day window at BEST to amnesty Gasol, and that's only if Dwight signs on July 1.

On top of that, there is actual use for Pau on this team whether you like his game or not. Metta World Peace is, more or less, done. Both are overpaid but we can still get something from Pau. MWP can't play defense and his offense is a joke.

At least with Pau you get boards, assists, and occasional points. The Lakers are thinking about security too. I would be surprised if they amnesty Gasol. The only way I see that happening is if they know 1)Nash is retiring, 2)MWP is opting out and 3)Dwight is re-signing, and 4)the market for Pau is PISS poor....highly unlikely.

You can't amnesty Nash, you can't amnesty players that weren't on your roster before the 2011 season or before the new CBA was conpleted I believe. I would amnesty MWP, he has no trade value, and as pointed out it can save you a ton of money. Pau I trade, he has to have at least some trade value as a huge expiring.

You guys are not taking into consideration the repeater tax. We absolutely have to do our best to get under the tax line. 2013/2014 we are not contending a championship so why make lateral moves (aka trade Pau for Granger - another big contract guy) . 2014 use draft pick (yes even a late 20s pick can yield a rotation player) + capspace to build a title contender. If a team has been a taxpayer in 3 consecutive season prior to 2014 it screws up everything for that year with even heavier penalties kicking in

The Rock wrote:You guys are not taking into consideration the repeater tax. We absolutely have to do our best to get under the tax line. 2013/2014 we are not contending a championship. 2014 use draft pick (yes even a late 20s pick can yield a rotation player) + capspace to build a title contender. If a team has been a taxpayer in 3 consecutive season prior to 2014 it screws up everything for that year with even heavier penalties kicking in

We'll be under the tax line in 2014 when everyone comes off the books. I'm not forgetting anything. The team has repeatedly said they'll pay the money if they feel like they're fielding a competitive team. A team of Nash/Bryant/Granger/Howard is certainly competitive if they stay healthy. The key is putting usable pieces around them to help out.